State of New South Wales v Briggs

The Court of Appeal of New South Wales heard an appeal by the State of New South Wales against a judgment finding it liable in negligence for psychological injury suffered by a police officer, Mr Briggs. Mr Briggs had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following exposure to various traumatic events during his service, which ultimately led to his discharge from the police force. The primary judge had found that the State was negligent in failing to diagnose and treat Mr Briggs' psychological injury at an earlier stage.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the State owed Mr Briggs a duty of care, that this duty had been breached, and that the breach had caused his psychological injury. Specifically, the court was required to consider the nature of the duty owed by a police employer to its officers in relation to psychological injury, the potential effect of relevant statutes on the scope or content of that duty, and the requirement for a prospective formulation of the duty, which would necessitate identifying a system or general instruction that would probably have prevented the injury.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, reasoning that the primary judge had erred in her findings. The court held that the duty of care owed by the State to its police officers in relation to psychological injury did not extend to a requirement to proactively diagnose and treat psychological conditions as they arose. Instead, the duty was confined to taking reasonable steps to avoid exposing officers to foreseeable risks of psychological harm, and to respond reasonably to known risks. The court found that the evidence did not establish that any failure to diagnose or treat earlier was causative of Mr Briggs' injury, nor that a different system or instruction would have prevented the development of his PTSD.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the orders made by the primary judge and entered judgment for the defendant, the State of New South Wales. The parties were directed to file and serve agreed minutes of any further orders or, in the absence of agreement, their proposed orders and submissions, to address any remaining issues on the papers.